IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Yet another RFCXMLv3 grammar bug

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com> Fri, 03 December 2021 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1D73A0D6D; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:15:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.852, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=mozilla.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Utl6mLzDKxov; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83403A0D70; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A19D11FDE7; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:15:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4E811FDE7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:15:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a-8agL1OX61B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85AE311FDDF for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id p23so4812682iod.7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 10:15:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IgEmaORvyOcdPhWEfE3zTC4tzBKFzi7ZQ7D/MYJKtuA=; b=U0IVObjCzEev/u2Io9mL+DiAoZ8gfbjR2KLjl0hWgdeXAB/r3nEgfywwACfSnDZGFR XBSet4U9EfOfv5VvoUYCy1vkYDiMBHv0QGlnZt45AcMVxryJHWLUIQX/hEFhj0UlTV91 OMHD+BvlW081BJY541+GU5S9GfRgFceYWt54A=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IgEmaORvyOcdPhWEfE3zTC4tzBKFzi7ZQ7D/MYJKtuA=; b=TUi01EVml99XA6WkBjwBcMA7qhxyaPM7WBm2ISdBPlZCKcJRYxGA5lxfe4vam03F7P fxdHfjQ3cLz31hkcoxivU+58RJ/TWOKXOfrVyl4jF5N72vnqfFOxAAWI2PvfA6RuVmwu nRNWcghq3vuBownE0c7LK1KyQyDAkMg0F/plHyl4syF8nBjm6J0y65uqK0R+5P5j25iK Li/kJ5loQ58p5XnOZJJznHttLB1kRhUnPyB8HLt3I1TsAzJ79xLXgaXo8wvjNuKLq/W+ twsyg9+uNIlo6RpAEufzZ7KQGDY6ve/hKhji65u7ep4XhfAqPPNHg8lDw7dAtz6Kqxeq Ipag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532UXv1o/O7sjD0ZuMc8ImNYroiUxvIvbmSc/QNLnzBwsBmQvw2n jrMC323pzx9gebA41n0plXtg+htoW/hgPg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAquVGKIqg3OGR4bSGN8DwlehcNdull57TfUwFnYxoSisCbV3Ol3OVHeB2PonRlOJam8Uc0w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:204e:: with SMTP id z14mr22117717iod.90.1638555299537; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 10:14:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.13] (c-76-25-154-156.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [76.25.154.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n28sm2222360ioz.17.2021.12.03.10.14.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Dec 2021 10:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9f0b0677-f2bf-450c-8543-c9c93d0f0365@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:14:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <577B911E-D367-40FC-A276-92A060C5F10C@tzi.org>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <577B911E-D367-40FC-A276-92A060C5F10C@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Yet another RFCXMLv3 grammar bug
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 12/3/21 4:22 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc-3.11.1.html#name-bcp14-2
> 
> This element can be a child element of <annotation>, <blockquote>, <dd>, <dt>, <em>, <li>, <name>, <refcontent>, <strong>, <sub>, <sup>, <t>, <td>, <th>, and <tt>.
> 
> … but not cref.
> 
> This means I cannot discuss BCP14 keywords in editorial notes.
> 
> (No, leaving off the BCP14 is not an option, a MUST NOT is a MUST NOT.
> But of course I can upgrade the spelling in the cref to mUsT NoT.)
> 
> I stick with my general comment that tweaking the individual content models to reflect some imagined policy (or should I say “policy that reflects lack of imagination”) is the wrong way to do this.  If something is allowed at the span level anywhere, it MUST be allowed everywhere at the span level.
> (This also should evaporate most of the noise in the grammar.)

Issue 200 raises its head again:

https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/200

I will work on this in the next few weeks.

Peter
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email